Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Now in the light of aforesaid settled position by the Apex Court and Full Bench of this Court, the first question referred by the Division Bench may be examined. When the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, and if a declaration simplicitor is prayed then he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee and a fixed court- fee under Article 17, Schedule-II of the Court Fees Act will be payable. This position is well settled by the Apex Court in Ningawwa (supra) and continued till the decision in Sneh Gupta (supra). The void document which is not binding upon the plaintiff needs to be avoided and in this regard a declaration is sufficient. The Full Bench of this Court in Santoshchandra (supra) has clarified the position and we respectfully agree with the law laid down by the Full Bench in Santoshchandra (supra).

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no doubt that if plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simplicitor for which court-fee under Article 17(iii) of Schedule-II would be sufficient. The question No. 1 is answered accordingly.

15. Now second question may be seen in respect of the judgment rendered in Narayan Singh (supra). In Narayan Singh, the plaintiffs had filed suit with the averment that the sale-deed in question was illegal and void. It was a forged document and also without consideration. The plaintiffs were in possession of the land, a relief for declaration was prayed and a fixed court-fee was paid. The defendants moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint on the ground that though the plaintiffs had assailed the sale-deed but had not paid ad valorem court-fee which ought to have been paid. The trial Court had rejected the application which order was assailed before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the case of the plaintiffs was that the document was a forged one and it does not bear the signature of Sitaram though Sitaram was party to the sale-deed. Plaintiffs had claimed their possession over the suit land. The suit was for permanent injunction and declaration. When the document was alleged to be illegal, void and executant had not signed the document, it was not necessary for them to make payment of ad valorem court-fee. The document in the plaint was shown to be void and not voidable, so ad valorem court-fee was not required and a fixed court- fee was found to be adequate. 3 The Division Bench further held that if the document, as per averments made in the plaint, is pleaded to be a void document so it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to avoid document by claiming relief to set aside and a fixed court-fee under Article 17(iii), Schedule-II of the Court Fees Act was sufficient. In the light of the discussion, while deciding the question No. 1, we have also held so and accordingly we find that the law laid down by the Division Bench in Narayan Singh (supra) has been correctly laid down". The Full Bench of this Court has held that when the plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding on him and a declaration simplicitor is prayed, then he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. In the present case, again a declaration simplicitor has been sought by the plaintiff.